Last month, we saw the third serious Amtrak accident of 2018 - the third in just in six weeks! Our "infrastructure president" should have his golden hair on fire about our third world inter-city train system. But of course, he can't be bothered. He just gave away $1,500,000,000 in tax cuts to himself and his wealthy pals, so a real effort to fix our miserable public infrastructure isn't going to happen. Fromt time to time there are blog posts and news stories about how aircraft in France struggle to get to their destinations ahead of the TGV trains, and nearly always fail! Every modern nation has rapid rail transit, just as they have universal health care, with the exception of the good old USA.

Which leads me to this opinion. I think Amtrak should be downsized. I know Amtrak's charter requires it to function as a 48-state federally subsidized train network. But it is an imbalanced network. California might be able to build its own high-speed coastal rail system. Amtrak is crucial to the economy of the five city megalopolis from Boston to DC. But it is not crucial anywhere else. It has to run on freight train tracks. Ridership is poor. It can keep the Chicago to LA routes for nostalgia buffs. But it's time to reduce Amtrak to mostly northeast service only. This would require Congressional action. And rather than downsize Amtrak to make it easier to kill, I would argue we need a fully-funded Amtrak to serve the northeast. No reduction in funding. Just a new charter and mission to keep the most important part of the United States running (most important region outside of California and Texas, certainly). Amtrak needs to run better. We need new everything in the northeast. We need new roads, bridges airports, train networks, and subways. Amtrak should be re-chartered as part of a 20-year northeast infrastructure rebuilding plan.

There's just one big problem. We're broke. It's a non-stater. And so the slide into oblivion continues.

Why? The USA missed its chance after World War II, when it had the capital and its rail corridors could have gotten the width they needed for freight and passenger trains on their own tracks. If the US tried to make room for high speed rail on the west and east coasts today, it would cost hundreds of billions. Of course, the US is still spending $2 Billion a week in Afghanistan. So I guess we can't afford it.

In France, Germany Japan and China, where four of the world class train systems are found, the high speed passenger services were built from scratch, not piggybacked on an old, existing, mostly freight rail system. A world war helped, and that included a lot of bombing by the US and UK. But I don't think that's any excuse. The USA remained a wealthy nation through the space age. Just look at what happened to Penn Station. The French National Rail Corporation would die laughing if it ever got a good look at Penn Station and Amtrak. After all, France is a first world country, while the United States barely qualifies as a banana republic. And I wrote these words before news came out that the state of New York is considering yet another private company to manage the crumbling Penn Station.

This ties into the bigger, more obvious issue that mass transit in the US is generally terrible. The underlying reason is the same: the best chance for planning and funding was in the last century (either before the 1920 crash, or just after WWII). In my father's day, New York City took care of it's essential infrastructure. The automobile had not yet become the dominant means of transportation, and Robert Moses had not yet rearranged the city to accommodate millions of cars. Now, after decades of neglect, the bill is coming due. I hope the city gets the help it needs, because it's approaching a dangerous tipping point.